On 8/11/05, Ovid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> X-Posted to Perlmonks (http://perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=483100)
>
> I frequently write code that generates anonymous functions on the fly.
> However, I often want to verify that these functions are correct
> without executing them. To this end, I
Luke Palmer wrote:
On 8/16/05, Ingo Blechschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
1_234; # surely 1234
1e23; # surely 1 * 10**23
1._5; # call of method "_5" on 1?
1._foo; # call of method "_foo" on 1?
1.e5; # 1.0 * 10**5?
1.efoo; # call of metho
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:14:43 +0300, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Let's define some terms:
These are all very good and I'm going to incorprate them in the API docs.
> scope/origin - where objects are created
I would refine this one.
origin scope - The lexical scope
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 03:58:54PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
> On 8/16/05, Tim Bunce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I was a little dissapointed that there wasn't greater focus on using
> > Perl6 features - especially as it would have helped kick-start my own
> > understanding of Perl6 topics that
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 01:16:19PM -0700, Darren Duncan wrote:
> At 4:04 PM +0100 8/16/05, Tim Bunce wrote:
> >I was a little dissapointed that there wasn't greater focus on using
> >Perl6 features - especially as it would have helped kick-start my own
> >understanding of Perl6 topics that I expect
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 04:39:06PM +0200, Nattfodd wrote:
> Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> >Anyone given any thought to Parrot <-> Java integration?
> >
> >Possible?
> >Practical?
> >How much would would be involved?
> >
> >Tim.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, it's even one of the summer of code projects (see
> h
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 00:59:52 +0100, Adrian Howard wrote:
> Sorry - I don't understand. If I do:
>
> call_to_external_c_library_foo( $foo );
> call_to_external_c_library_bar( $bar );
>
> Then how does the compiler know that $foo is only used temporarily and can
> be moved around, w
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:46:29 +0300, Yuval Kogman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 05:32:50 -, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) =
> wrote:
>> > This is getting me thinking though:
>> >=20
>> >$*RUNTIME.Memory.GarbageCollector.dispose($object); # force it,
>> >
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 12:12:02PM -0700, Dean Arnold wrote:
> Tim Bunce wrote:
>
> >And nobody mentioned JDBC as a potential model. Odd that.
>
> I was sorely tempted to do so (and did mention it a few times in
> my posts, along w/ ODBC and ADO.NET), but there are some things about
> JDBC which
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 05:06:55 -, David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wrote:
> This should be changed, timelyness will not prevent deadlock. However
> it will prevent resource starvation aka livelock.
What I meant is deadlock due to resource starvation:
my $semaphore = Sempahore.n
Robert wrote:
I am creating my first module (finally) and I was told a while ago to use
Module::Starter. Which I did. I am fine there. When I look at the code
generated I see that all the POD stuff is inline while I prefer to see POD
stuff at the end. Is the inline POD the current preferred way?
: If not a special form, should this work?
:
: my $pi is constant;
: $pi = 3;
That could be made to work by defining constant to mean you can assign
to it if it's undefined. But then it gets a little harder to reason
about it if $pi can later become undefined. I suppose we could
dis
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 16:59:12 -0400, Mark Reed wrote:
> On 2005-08-16 16:45, "Nicholas Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd find it hard defending a language that treated 1.e5 as a method call.
>
> Guess we shouldn't sign you up for the Ruby Defense League, then?
>
> irb(main):001:0> 1.e
On 8/17/05 5:39 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 03:58:54PM -0400, John Siracusa wrote:
>> I think it'll take years, and much actual production experience building
>> Perl 6 modules before the community learns what works and what doesn't for a
>> Perl 6 API (let alone implementation).
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 01:56:35PM +1000, Adam Kennedy wrote:
:
: >: If not a special form, should this work?
: >:
: >: my $pi is constant;
: >: $pi = 3;
: >
: >That could be made to work by defining constant to mean you can assign
: >to it if it's undefined. But then it gets a little h
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 08:47:18AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> : >That could be made to work by defining constant to mean you can assign
> : >to it if it's undefined. But then it gets a little harder to reason
> : >about it if $pi can later become undefined. I suppose we could
> : >disallow undefi
On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Tim Bunce wrote:
> Configure.pl said
>
> Determining if your platform supports gdbm.yes.
>
> But t/dynclass/gdbmhash.t fails completely:
>
> Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed
> ---
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 08:07:22PM +0100, Tim Bunce wrote:
> Anyone given any thought to Parrot <-> Java integration?
I have been looking at IKVM:
http://www.ikvm.net/
It's basically a full Java environment but using CLR instead of
JVM as the underlying runtime. The JIT conversion from Java
> --- parrot-current/src/library.cTue Aug 16 13:22:34 2005
> +++ parrot-andy/src/library.c Tue Aug 16 15:46:49 2005
> @@ -212,9 +212,11 @@
> * if the extension is given use it
> * TODO if not try extensions according to type
> */
> +/*
> if (!ext) {
> i
Fellow Testers,
I give you Test.Simple 0.20. This latest version of my port of
Test::Simple and Test::Harness to JavaScript now supports pure .js
test scripts in the browser harness. Details and change log here:
http://www.justatheory.com/computers/programming/javascript/
test_simple-0.2
Hello all,
I tried to search for this answer in AES12, but I did not see anything,
and a perl6.lang search just brought up the whole $_.method vs.
./method debate (which was too much to shlog through).
So, onto my question, I am wondering what are the valid scopes for
$?SELF and $?CLASS.
A
Hi,
Stevan Little wrote:
> So, onto my question, I am wondering what are the valid scopes for
> $?SELF and $?CLASS.
>
> Are these (magical) globals who only have bound values in certain
> contexts? If that is so, what value do they have outside of a valid
> context? undef? or is attempting to acc
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 05:25:40PM -0400, Roger Hale wrote:
: 1.e5# all of these...
: 1._e5 #
: 1._0e5 #
: 1.e_0_5_# == 1 * 10^5?
The last three are illegal because underline is allowed only between
digits.
: The longest-possible-token metarule, common among
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 11:37:26AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 05:25:40PM -0400, Roger Hale wrote:
> : 1.e5# all of these...
> : 1._e5 #
> : 1._0e5 #
> : 1.e_0_5_# == 1 * 10^5?
>
> The last three are illegal because underline is allowed
On Aug 17, 2005, at 2:28 PM, Ingo Blechschmidt wrote:
Hi,
Stevan Little wrote:
So, onto my question, I am wondering what are the valid scopes for
$?SELF and $?CLASS.
Are these (magical) globals who only have bound values in certain
contexts? If that is so, what value do they have outside of a
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 02:15:56PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: So, onto my question, I am wondering what are the valid scopes for
: $?SELF and $?CLASS.
:
: Are these (magical) globals who only have bound values in certain
: contexts? If that is so, what value do they have outside of a valid
:
class T
{
has $.a =1;
my $.a=2;
};
my T $o .= new;
$o.a().say;
What the result will be please?
1 or 2?
Or an error?
Thanks,
Xinming
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 03:33:35AM +0800, Yiyi Hu wrote:
: class T
: {
: has $.a =1;
: my $.a=2;
: };
: my T $o .= new;
: $o.a().say;
:
: What the result will be please?
: 1 or 2?
: Or an error?
Definitely a compile-time error. You can't declare the same lexical
name even if the declarator is di
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 02:42:57PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: I think in a Role, $?SELF would still be the invocant in a method, and
: $?CLASS would (eventually) bind to the class the role was composed
: into.
Yes, such things stay generic as long as they need to, and no longer.
: As for sub
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 02:40:12AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 11:37:26AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 05:25:40PM -0400, Roger Hale wrote:
: > : 1.e5# all of these...
: > : 1._e5 #
: > : 1._0e5 #
: > : 1.e_0_5_
One of the things I'm looking forward to in Perl6 is greatly improved
sub/method signatures.
I'm hoping that this will eliminate the need for anything like
Params::Validate, which IMO is a nasty hack to make up for a serious
weakness in Perl5.
I'm going to go over the various features in P::
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 12:02:53AM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 08:47:18AM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: > : >That could be made to work by defining constant to mean you can assign
: > : >to it if it's undefined. But then it gets a little harder to reason
: > : >about it if $
On 8/17/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You could still reason about it if you can determine what the initial
> value is going to be. But certainly that's not a guarantee, which
> is one of the reasons we're now calling this write/bind-once behavior
> "readonly" and moving true constan
> "DR" == Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DR> Mandatory vs. Optional Parameters
DR> This is a pretty straightforward one in P6, I think. Parameters can
DR> be marked as required with "is required" like this:
DR> sub date ($year, ?$month, ?$day) # positional
DR> sub da
On 8/17/05, Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to go over the various features in P::V and see if there are
> equivalents in Perl6, and bring up any questions I have. I think this
> will be interesting for folks still new to P6 (like myself) and existing
> P::V users (I think there
Two years ago or so, I became very happy to learn that the left side
of binding works just like a routine signature. So what if binding
*were* just a routine signature. That is, could we make this:
sub foo () {
say "hello";
my $x := bar();
say "goodbye $x";
}
Equ
Larry,
On Aug 17, 2005, at 2:53 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
: As for submethods, I see them like this:
:
: submethod foo () { ... }
:
: is really ..
:
: submethod foo () {
: next METHOD unless $?SELF ~~ $?CLASS;
: }
:
: At least that is how larry explained to me about a month ago.
Can't use ~~
--- demerphq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One idea might be to try using Data::Dump::Streamer for your tests.
> It
> will serialize the lexical context that the subroutine was compiled
> with (including bound anonymous subroutines and their lexical
> context).
>
> A small hack (that i would be ha
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 22:06:07 +, Luke Palmer wrote:
> >
> >{ credit_card_number =>
> > { optional => 1,
> >depends => [ 'credit_card_expiration', 'credit_card_holder_name' ] },
> >
> > credit_card_expiration => { optional => 1 },
> >
> > credit_card_holder_name
In the last year AJAX has become a significant technology.
Now with perl 6 compiling to javascript and perl 5 and what not, i
think there is a big future when you merge the two and remove the
details.
The way HTML::Prototype works is:
you get an OO interface, which is clean and simple
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 06:26:02PM -0400, Stevan Little wrote:
: I am not sure if changing classes makes sense here so much as just
: providing a means for submethod calls to be forced. Currently the
: metamodels do this by allowing a special parameter in the first
: argument which is a flag to
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 09:37:08PM +, Luke Palmer wrote:
: On 8/17/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > You could still reason about it if you can determine what the initial
: > value is going to be. But certainly that's not a guarantee, which
: > is one of the reasons we're now calli
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Luke Palmer wrote:
Dependencies, Exclusions, and "Require one-of"
With P::V I can do this:
{ credit_card_number =>
{ optional => 1,
depends => [ 'credit_card_expiration', 'credit_card_holder_name' ] },
credit_card_expiration => { optional => 1 },
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005, Yuval Kogman wrote:
You sortof can:
sub validate (+$credit_card_number,
+$credit_card_expiration,
+$credit_card_holder_name)
where { defined $credit_card_number xor
defined $credit_card_expiration &&
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Dave Rolsky wrote:
Type Validation, "isa", & "can"
Params::Validate allows for several ways to check the _value_ of a parameter.
One way is to specify a primitive type like "SCALAR" or "ARRAYREF". In P6 we
have that with this:
sub date (Scalar +$year is required, ...)
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 11:45:52PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> And another question. How will I make Perl6 not do automatic coercion for
> me. If I have this sub:
>
> sub date (Int +$year is required, +$month, +$day)
BTW, Pugs supports the ++ syntax, which iirc is said to be back in favour
du
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 01:28 -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> > Why on earth would you want to encourage such a short sighted
> > programming practise? The earth wobbles like a spinning top. In fact
> It's hardly short sighted to want leap seconds to be abandoned (not in
> Perl but world wide). The f
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 01:04:56PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote:
: On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 11:45:52PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
: > And another question. How will I make Perl6 not do automatic coercion for
: > me. If I have this sub:
: >
: > sub date (Int +$year is required, +$month, +$day)
:
:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 23:43:43 -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> But I'd really like to get this stuff done at compile time wherever possible.
>
> If I write this:
>
>validate( credit_card_number: $number );
>
> it should blow up at compile time, right?
So should MMD: The type signatures are
49 matches
Mail list logo
